In December 2025, the United Nations will convene a High-Level Meeting to adopt the WSIS+20 outcome of the twenty-year review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This moment is widely seen as an opportunity to shape the next phase of global digital cooperation, anchored in human rights, sustainable development, and the principles reaffirmed in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
The WSIS+20 outcome text acknowledges the right of persons with disabilities to access information and communications technologies on an equal basis with others and refers repeatedly to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). However, despite these important references, the current outcome text still treats disability inclusion as peripheral. The persistent digital divide affecting more than 1.5 billion persons with disabilities worldwide is acknowledged only in passing, and the lack of concrete commitments risks reproducing the same exclusion WSIS sought to overcome twenty years ago.
If WSIS+20 is to fulfil its promise of a “people-centred, inclusive and development-oriented Information Society,” disability inclusion must move from footnotes to the main agenda.
The text is filled with grand ambitions for a “people-centred, inclusive” internet, tackling everything from AI governance to digital finance. But as I read the document, a familiar and frustrating pattern emerged. Tucked away in Paragraph 22, we find the obligatory mention of persons with disabilities. And this single paragraph perfectly captures the gap between our global promises and our lived reality.
The document notes that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities affirms their right to access information and communications technologies “on an equal basis.” This is a powerful legal anchor. It confirms that digital access is not a gift, but a fundamental human right. Yet in the very next breath, the document states: “We are concerned that persons with disabilities nevertheless remain less likely to access the Internet.”
This “concern” is a diplomatic admission of a massive, systemic failure.
For twenty years, we have built a digital world that has systemically excluded 1.5 billion people. The digital divide is not only about rural connectivity or 4G access; it is about the millions of uncaptioned videos, unnavigable websites, and inaccessible apps that define the online experience for users with visual, auditory, motor, or cognitive disabilities.
This exclusion is not an accident; it is a choice—caused by treating accessibility as an add-on, a niche concern, or a “vulnerable group” checkbox (as seen in Paragraph 12), rather than as a core design and policy principle.
The WSIS+20 document itself, in Paragraph 66, reaffirms the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as an indivisible part of international human rights law. The legal imperative could not be clearer. When public digital infrastructure is inaccessible, the issue is not merely poor design; it is a violation of human rights.
The call for “concerted action” in Paragraph 22 is welcome, but it rings hollow. We have been calling for this for decades. What is needed is implementation, not more expressions of concern.
What “Inclusive” Must Mean
To treat 1.5 billion people as central—not peripheral—to digital transformation, we must adopt concrete commitments:
- Mandatory Co-Design: Follow “Nothing About Us, Without Us” by legally requiring persons with disabilities to be involved from conception to deployment of all digital services.
- Structural Inclusion in Governance: Persons with disabilities must be named as a stakeholder group with agency—leaders, innovators, and decision-makers. This includes representation in bodies such as the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group, national and regional IGFs, and AI governance panels.
- Binding Procurement Standards: Governments must stop purchasing inaccessible technology. Public procurement must require compliance with accessibility standards.
- Universal Design as Default: Accessibility must be the baseline starting point for digital innovation, not an optional feature added when budgets allow.
Proposal for Textual Amendments to WSIS+20 Outcome Document
As an expert in internet governance, human rights, and disability-inclusive digital policy with lived experience of disability, I propose the following revisions to the WSIS+20 outcome document, Rev-1. These changes are proposed with an aim of ensuring the rights, leadership, and lived experience of persons with disabilities are embedded across implementation, measurement, and governance. The proposed changes are:
1. Original paragraph (para 22):
“We call for concerted action by all stakeholders to promote accessibility and equal access to the Internet and digital resources as a priority, including through the availability of accessible and assistive technologies.”
Proposed revision: “We call for concerted action by all stakeholders to promote accessibility and equal access to the Internet and digital resources as a priority, including through the adoption and enforcement of international accessibility standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1/2.2) or any such recognised international standards, and the mandatory procurement and integration of assistive technologies across all public digital platforms and ICT initiatives.”
2. Original paragraph (para 114):
“We are committed to the further development and strengthening of internationally agreed targets, indicators and metrics for universal meaningful and affordable connectivity and digital development.”
Proposed revision (new clause added at the end): “We are committed to the further development and strengthening of internationally agreed targets, indicators and metrics for universal meaningful and affordable connectivity and digital development, including the systematic collection and reporting of disability-disaggregated data on digital access, usage, accessibility, and affordability, in line with CRPD obligations.”
3. Original paragraph (para 88):
“Measures are needed to ensure more effective participation by stakeholders from developing countries and underrepresented groups…”
Proposed revision: “Measures are needed to ensure more effective participation by stakeholders from developing countries and underrepresented groups, including persons with disabilities, particularly those with lived experience, not only as beneficiaries but as equal contributors and leaders in Internet governance and standard-setting bodies.”
4. Original paragraph (para 39):
“We recognise that ICTs have helped governments and other stakeholders to address risks associated with natural disasters and facilitated humanitarian assistance at times of crisis through more consistent and remote monitoring of environmental and other hazards, enhancing and developing early warning systems and improving preparedness, response, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction.”
Proposed revision: “We recognise that ICTs have helped governments and other stakeholders to address risks associated with natural disasters and facilitated humanitarian assistance at times of crisis through more consistent and remote monitoring of environmental and other hazards, enhancing and developing early-warning systems and improving preparedness, response, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. We further commit to ensuring that such systems and interventions are also accessible, inclusive and responsive to the needs of persons with disabilities; and that early warning communications, evacuation processes, recovery tools and digital information channels adhere to accessibility standards and assistive technology compatibility.”
5. Original paragraph (para 27):
“We reiterate the need for the development of local content and services in a variety of languages and formats that are accessible to all people…”
Proposed revision: “We reiterate the need for the development of local content and services in a variety of languages and formats that are accessible to all people, and ensure that these are delivered in formats compatible with accessible technologies (e.g., screen readers, captions, sign language, simplified language) to also meet the needs of persons with disabilities.”
6. Add to paragraph 12:
“…persons with disabilities, with attention to the leadership of people with lived experience…”
7. Add to paragraph 17:
“…inclusive and interoperable digital public infrastructure that adheres to international accessibility standards by default…”
8. Add to paragraph 57:
“…to build expertise in technical aspects of digitalisation, with special programs co-designed with organizations of persons with disabilities (OPDs)…”
9. Addition to paragraph 58 (Digital Skills & Learning):
Special efforts should be made to co-design and deliver digital capacity building and leadership development programs for persons with disabilities, ensuring that their lived experience informs policymaking, especially in emerging areas like AI, cybersecurity, and data governance.
10. Addition to paragraph 84 (AI Capacity Building):
This should include the participation of persons with disabilities, both as beneficiaries and contributors, and establish leadership pathways for experts with lived experience of disability to shape inclusive and ethical AI governance frameworks.
Conclusion
The WSIS+20 review offers a unique moment to shift from aspiration to action. Persons with disabilities are not an afterthought—they are essential agents in shaping the digital future. A people-centred Information Society must be accessible by design, inclusive by default, and accountable through data and leadership.
Unless these commitments are embedded in the outcome document, the vision of universal, meaningful, and affordable connectivity will remain unfinished.
Let us not allow another global summit to pass where disability is mentioned, but not meaningfully included.